https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120691 The appellant, a limited company engaged in the activity of CHA, was accused of abetting fraudulent activities by an exporter under Section 114 of the Customs Act. However, the investigation failed to establish the appellant's involvement in the offense. The Tribunal found no concrete evidence against the appellants, emphasizing the necessity of evidence to establish abetment. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The judgment underscores the importance of substantial evidence in proving allegations of abetment under the Customs Act, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order against the appellant. en-us Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:31:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120691 The appellant, a limited company engaged in the activity of CHA, was accused of abetting fraudulent activities by an exporter under Section 114 of the Customs Act. However, the investigation failed to establish the appellant's involvement in the offense. The Tribunal found no concrete evidence against the appellants, emphasizing the necessity of evidence to establish abetment. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The judgment underscores the importance of substantial evidence in proving allegations of abetment under the Customs Act, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order against the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120691